DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Hearold, 603 So. 2d 731.

1245 citing documents.

  • State v. Pollard 165 So. 3d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    4 Cir. 6/4/14), ( State v. Brown, 08-1434, p. 8 (La.App.
  • State v. Green 164 So. 3d 331 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    State v. Bosley, 29,-253 (La.App.
  • State v. Robinson 163 So. 3d 829 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La.App.2d Cir.04/02/97), , unit denied, 1997-1203 (La.10/17/97), .
  • State v. Martin 163 So. 3d 846 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Manning 164 So. 3d 346 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    State v. Hearold , State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La.App.2d C3r.4/2/97), , writ denied, 97-1203 (La.10/17/97), .
  • State v. Workman 170 So. 3d 279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Thompson 163 So. 3d 139 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State of Louisiana v. Wayne G. Taylor A/K/A Wayne Taylor 166 So. 3d 988 La. 2015
    events in an exculpatory fashion,” but one that, after viewing all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, admissible as well as inadmissible, “is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not ‘have found proof of guilt 7 beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Captville, 448 So.2d at 680 (quoting Jackson); (La.
  • State v. Humbles 169 So. 3d 547 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Griffin 169 So. 3d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Miner 163 So. 3d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    We address Mr. Miner’s second assignment of error first, in accordance with the well-settled jurisprudence that “[w]hen issues are raised on appeal as to the sufficiency of the evidence and as to one or more trial errors, the reviewing court should first determine the sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Marcantel, 00-1629, p. 8 (La.4/3/02), .
  • State v. McClure 169 So. 3d 510 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Gorman 166 So. 3d 356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State of Louisiana v. Demonte Jamar Henry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    (footnote omitted), the supreme court stated: When issues are raised on appeal both as to the sufficiency of the evidence and as to one or more trial errors, the reviewing court should first determine the sufficiency of the evidence.
  • State of Louisiana v. Isaac Thomas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
  • State v. Marx 163 So. 3d 44 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    4 Cir. 5/2/12), (); see also Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 , 109 S.Ct.
  • State v. Thomas 159 So. 3d 1115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    970 , 67 L.Ed.2d 30 (1981)
  • State v. Henry 159 So. 3d 1176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    (footnote omitted), the supreme court stated: When issues are raised on appeal both as to the sufficiency of the evidence and as to one or more trial errors, the reviewing court should first determine the sufficiency of the evidence.
  • State v. Estes 168 So. 3d 847 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    State v. Miller, 06-451, p. 6 (La.App.
  • State v. Miller 160 So. 3d 1069 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Rapp 161 So. 3d 103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    We address this issue first; “[w]hen issues are raised on appeal as to the sufficiency of the evidence and as to one or more trial errors, [the reviewing court is to] first determine the sufficiency *108 of the evidence.” State v. Marcantel, 00-1629, p. 8 (La.4/3/02)
  • State v. Stipe 167 So. 3d 942 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Ellis 161 So. 3d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    “When issues are raised on appeal as to the sufficiency of the evidence and as to one or more trial errors, the reviewing court should first determine the sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Marcantel, 2000-1629, p. 8 (La.4/3/02)
  • State v. Armstead 159 So. 3d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Murray 161 So. 3d 918 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Lloyd 161 So. 3d 879 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    State v. Cook, 48,355 (La.App.2d Cir.11/20/13), , writ denied, 2013-3000 (La.5/30/14), .
  • State v. Alverez 158 So. 3d 142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Wall 209 So. 3d 962 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Griffin 167 So. 3d 31 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Bowens 156 So. 3d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Ramirez 154 So. 3d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    App. 4 Cir. 7/23/14), ( State v. Brown, 2008-1434, p. 8 (La.App.
  • State v. Castillo 167 So. 3d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Porter 151 So. 3d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Morning 149 So. 3d 925 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Smith, 47,983 (La.App.2d Cir.5/15/13), .
  • State v. Johnson 151 So. 3d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    “[W]hen the entirety of the evidence, both admissible and inadmissible, is sufficient to support the conviction, the accused is not entitled to an acquittal, and the reviewing court must then consider the assignments of trial error to determine whether the accused is entitled to a new trial.”
  • State v. Melancon 151 So. 3d 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Robinson 150 So. 3d 900 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    (“When issues are raised on appeal both as to the sufficiency of the evidence and as to one or more trial errors, the reviewing court should first determine the sufficiency of the evidence.”).
  • State v. Dominguez 148 So. 3d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Because this assignment relates to the sufficiency of the evidence presented
  • State v. Watson 147 So. 3d 1169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Henry 147 So. 3d 1143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    iewing court to determine whether it believes the witnesses or whether it believes that the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; the factfinder is given much discretion in determinations of credibility and evidence, and the reviewing court will only impinge on this discretion to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law); (the entirety of the evidence, whether properly or improperly admitted, is to be considered by the reviewing court whe
  • State ex rel. K.M. 146 So. 3d 865 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Falkins 146 So. 3d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    State v. Marcantel, 00-1629, p. 8 (La.4/3/02)
  • State v. Cushenberry 146 So. 3d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Gordon 146 So. 3d 758 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    State v. Marcantel, 2000-1629, p. 8 (La.4/3/02)
  • State v. Wells 156 So. 3d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    (“When issues are raised on appeal both as to the sufficiency of the evidence 113and as to one or more trial errors, the reviewing court should first determine the sufficiency of evidence.”).
  • State v. Ansah 147 So. 3d 248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    “When issues are raised on appeal both as to the sufficiency of the evidence and as to one or more trial errors, the reviewing court should first determine the sufficiency of the evidence.” (La.
  • State v. Hatfield 155 So. 3d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    State v. Marcantel, 2000-1629, p. 8 (La.4/3/02), ().
  • State v. Byrd 145 So. 3d 536 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Smith, 47,983 (La.App.2d Cir.5/15/13), .
  • State v. Wallace 143 So. 3d 1275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    The Louisiana Supreme Court has previously held that “[wjhen the issues on appeal relate to both the sufficiency of the evidence and one or more trial errors, the reviewing court should first determine the sufficiency of the evidence by considering the entirety of the evidence.”
  • State of Louisiana v. Ted Dwayne Stevens, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014